[PATCH] Fix typo in vsx-regs.exp test

[PATCH] Fix typo in vsx-regs.exp test

[Carl Love]

GDB maintainers:

The following patch fixes a typo in the vsx-regs.exp test.  The
specification for the set vs register has an extra "]" in it that
results in a  tcl error sourcing error on the expect file.  The
following patch fixes the issue and the test no runs without errors.

The patch has been tested on a Power 9 LE system.

Please let me know if the patch is acceptable for mainline.  Thanks.

                    Carl Love

------------------------------------------------------------------
Fix typo in vsx-regs.exp test

gdb/ChangeLog
2021-06-15  Carl Love  <cel@us.ibm.com>

	* testsuite/gdb.arch/vsx-regs.exp (gdb_test_no_output): Fix typo
	in set \$vs$i.v2_double.
---
 gdb/testsuite/gdb.arch/vsx-regs.exp | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.arch/vsx-regs.exp b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.arch/vsx-regs.exp
index 0b0d2fa4d53..44ed993f127 100644
--- a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.arch/vsx-regs.exp
+++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.arch/vsx-regs.exp
@@ -99,7 +99,7 @@ set float_register ".raw 0xdeadbeefdeadbeef."
 
 # 0: Initialize the (doubleword 1) portion of the VS0-VS31 registers.
 for {set i 0} {$i < 32} {incr i 1} {
-    gdb_test_no_output "set \$vs$i.v2_double\][0\] = 0"
+    gdb_test_no_output "set \$vs$i.v2_double\[0\] = 0"
 }
 
 # 1: Set F0~F31 registers and check if it reflects on VS0~VS31.
-- 
2.17.1

Re: [PATCH] Fix typo in vsx-regs.exp test

[Tom Tromey]

>>>>> "Carl" == Carl Love via Gdb-patches <gdb-patches@sourceware.org> writes:

Carl> The following patch fixes a typo in the vsx-regs.exp test.  The
Carl> specification for the set vs register has an extra "]" in it that
Carl> results in a  tcl error sourcing error on the expect file.  The
Carl> following patch fixes the issue and the test no runs without errors.

Thank you.

Carl> The patch has been tested on a Power 9 LE system.

Carl> Please let me know if the patch is acceptable for mainline.  Thanks.

Yes.  This kind of patch falls under the "obvious" rule, so review isn't
needed.

Tom